Skip to main content

tv   BOS Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee 4716  SFGTV  April 10, 2016 4:10am-6:36am PDT

4:10 am
4:11 am
4:12 am
4:13 am
4:14 am
4:15 am
4:16 am
we know a big part of our public safety efforts are for not, that's one tool we have is to make sure we have these protections in place. we're also experiencing a crisis in law enforcement in san francisco just like other places around the country and it makes sense that we strengthen our laws to build this trust and that's what this update here is about. since we pass ted 2013 legislation due process for all, the federal fwo*ft came up with priority enforcement program which doesn't deal
4:17 am
with detention letters, now they send a letter saying we should notify them when one of our persons at ice believes is undocumented. if they know whether they called the police or became a witness or a victim of a crime, that could result in a deportation, possibly their own deportation, that would put a series chilling effect on them wanting to pim up the phone and help police resolve crime. we need to make sure that people have that faith in our local law enforcement, any action they take will not lead to deportation, the update today is to make sure that we are setting the standard to meet the new notification requirement under the pet program and we are making a clear standard what is going to be the law
4:18 am
of the land for what the exception will be for local law enforcement to communicate with ice, because we had earlier legislation, sang xhair amendments in 19ed 93, that gave us a broad standard of what was booked on a felony, gave license for local law enforcement to talk to ice, we wanted to put a restrictive standard in place so we can have the faith of what we've been seeking for these changes to our sanctuary city policies, so i want to thank our local law enforcement folks for being here today and they're here as well, not just to talk about the changes we're putting forward and the due process for all ordinance but also to discuss how we can prevent the situation that happened with paid owe figueroa who will be explained by law enforcement today, a person who had his car impoud pounded, when they want today get his car out
4:19 am
of impounded, a series of events that resulted in him being held in custody with ice for deportation proceedings. uncially he was being released unfortunate during the months of the holidayser her was separated from his wife and his 8 year-old daughter, we want to make sure that doesn't happen again. because there was a question of our city sanctuary policies, whether law enforcement would discuss the ice the situation with people in their custody, that they gave the belief that some officials in our law enforcement could use their own discretion, if that's the case, we're clearly making san francisco unsafe for people who will lose confidence in law enforcement, so today we'll have a discussion about what happened with the pedro figueroa case, we have him here, and i want to thank
4:20 am
him for doing that, i want to apologize to him and his family for what happened and how we lost our guard in termser of how we had protections for people in an immigrant community and i'll make that apology again when he appears at the podium. i wanted to allow supervisor campos who has been a huge champion as well of our immigrant community and fighter for immigrant policies here if san francisco, supervisor campos? >> thank you, mr. chairman, i'll be brief, i want to thank everyone for being here, thanks to our sheriff and all of our other folk ins the police department that are here. i think it is a very critical time on this issue, and quite frankly, i think that what happened with mr. figueroa to me, i attribute that to a number of things including i think some of the mixed messages that have been sent and that's why i think
4:21 am
clarity is critical. i believe the mayor and our sheriff vicky hennessey have sent mixed messages to the community on this issue. the chronicle reports that sheriff hennessey according to their editorial is asking department lawyers to "navigate a path through federal, state and city rules on handing arrest tees without legal status in a way to keep communication and notification open". i don't know what that means. navigate a path to keep communication and notification open, trying to ensure that communication and notification are not open has been at the heart of sanctuary policy, so if the sheriff is changing that policy, i want the know that.
4:22 am
i think that when a top law enforcement official and the mayor himself talk out of both sides of their mouth, it's not surprising that something like this happened. you know, the thing about sanctuary, being a sanctuary city, is that you either are or you're not, you know, you can't be half way a sanctuary city and half way not. you either are or you're not. and so i am still confused as to what we really are right now, and i think it's really sad that in the context of the rhetoric at the national level, donald trump and others, we have law enforcement officials in san francisco that are sending
4:23 am
mixed signals, i think it's sad. i think it goes everything that we're supposed to be, and so i want to get clarity, but i also want to get clarity on the specific policy and what happens. i don't want to here niceties because i've heard the rhetoric. i want to know specifically what it means, what does it mean to navigate a path, what does it mean to keep communication and notification open? are we a sanctuary or not? and if we're not, then at least be honest about it, but i think that this community and the point of this legislation is to make sure we have clarity on it, so i look forward to hearing that clarity today. thank you. >> thank you, since we're talking about item 2 and it's really looking at the policies that were in place
4:24 am
that led to pedro's being held in custody in ice, i would like the call up pedro and francisco guearte from the public defender's office and if you can speak first to introduce pedro, maybe you can summarize in 30 seconds what you saw happen and i want to hear from mr. figueroa and then we'll go on to hear from the sheriff and the police department. >> supervisor avalos, the attorney for mr. figueroa's actually here, i wasn't the attorney of record on that, so perhaps molly white can speak on that. >> okay, great. >> i would be happy to talk a little bit about the sanctuary issues. >> thank you, i appreciate it.
4:25 am
>> good afternoon, my name is zero whit field and i'm an attorney and we did represent pedro in his immigration proceedings and we are continuing to represent him, i would also like to introduce sarah hue sane who represents pedro figueroa. >> thank you, if you want to -- pedro's going to talk about his story and what happened, if you want to summarize that before and introduce him to speak, that would be great. >> so, mr. figueroa is going to talk a little bit about what happened on the date in question, what i wanted to provide a little bit of commentary about is what happened before the date in question. what happened such that there was a "warrant" in the system, an ice administrative warrant on the day that pedro went to the police station to seek help from the police, and so just my very quick
4:26 am
comment on is that, is that more than ten years ago when pedro entered this country, he was encountered by ice at that time, and the ice officers who encountered pedro when he entered the united states held him just briefly and then because he didn't have money on him to pay a bond, they released him. now, ordinarily when someone is released by ice in the border region, the ice officers write down their name and their address and send them a notice of their upcoming immigration hearing, in this particular case, they did not write any address for mr. figueroa, so when mr. figueroa had an immigration hearing later in texas, he was not notified of that hearing, he never received anything in the mail letting him know there was an immigration hearing occurring for him. and so he was ordered deported and what we call
4:27 am
inabsten shall, she was ordered without ever being present for a hearing, so because of that deportation where he was not present, mr. figueroa had an outstanding deportation order which led to this administrative we'll call it a warrant, which is what the police saw when they later encountered him more than ten yearling later when he came to them with hem with his stolen car, so i bring this up just to reiterate how important it is to not have ice be involved with the san francisco police when we have procedures like this that are taking place with ice, the moment we brought this to the attention of an immigration judge in sex sas, to let the judge know that he didn't receive notice that this took place, that judge reopened his case right away, so these kinds of procedures on the part of ice can really
4:28 am
impact people in a negative way and force mr. figueroa to spend about two months in custody completely unnecessarily because of his being encountered later by the san francisco police and they're turning him over to ice again, so that's what i had to say about what had occurred before the date in question when the san francisco police encountered mr. figueroa. >> thank you, and if you could just -- right before mr. pedro figueroa was, if you could summarize very briefly, 30 seconds, what you saw happened? >> certainly, so and mr. figueroa on december 2 went to the san francisco police because they had called him to let him know that his stolen car had been recovered, and so mr. figueroa will tell you in his own words what happened on that day when he went to the police station to get his recovered stolen car.
4:29 am
>> ( speaking spanish ). ( speaking dlu interpreter ). >> so, mr. figueroa, on behalf of myself and my fellow supervisor and the city and county of san francisco, we'd like to apologize to you of what happened to you. >> ( speaking spanish ). ( speaking through interpreter ).
4:30 am
>> so, first of all, i would like to say thank you to all and thank you to all these beautiful people and community that is supporting me, but also what i would like to know is why was i victimized, why did i become a victim to aus all this, well, if i did have an arrest warrant, so be it, but i don't feel that was the case, all i did was just to go and show up myself to pick up my car and this happened to me.
4:31 am
so, again, i want to thank you all, thank this xhaoun, right now, i'm concerned there's a lot of things going through my mind, a lot of uncertainty that what's going to happen to my family, what's going to happen to my danker, what's going to happen in 2017 when i have this hear, my mind is really on all this because of all this that took place. and thank you again for everything that yu eve done -- you've done for me.
4:32 am
4:33 am
so, basically i'm going tell you about what happened, my car was stolen so i reported it to san francisco police department, i filled out a report and they told me that they would be in contact with me two or three days, whenever they would find it, at some point, i received a phone call saying my car was found but it was not in a drivable condition, the car had been found at 7th and bryant, it was take ton the impoundment, i showed up and basically i was hoping -- i had tool ins the casing i was hoping ta the tools may be there, i was also worried about just the debt that was
4:34 am
accumulating because it was impounded.
4:35 am
so, i went to the police station twice, one to make the report and the second time to get my casing so i knew i had to get a relief signed by the police so i could take my car out of impoundment, we went there, i showed them my i.d., my wife showed them my license and they said go sit down and wait. everything was going fine at that point.
4:36 am
4:37 am
so, we continued in that space waiting for whatever dock ms needed to be processed, i remember i was eating some kind of seed but there was no garbage can around so i got up and i exited that space to look for a garbage can and i saw two agents, whatever, i didn't owe anything to anybody so i didn't pay mind to it, i walked about 20 to 25 step and is then i saw -- i noticed they were following me, i came back and they were following me, when i came back in that space, i told my wife, something strange is happening, these officers are following me and she said, don't worry, don't pay any attention to that, at some
4:38 am
point, the two officers came in, they told me to stand up and they told me i was going to be detained. my wife said, what's going on, she said, don't worry, we're going to question them, if not the person in question, there's nothing to worry about, they handcuffed me, took me to another room, they took my document, they took my belongings.
4:39 am
>> i have a question. a quick question. do you know the names of the people who escorted you so that you went out that way, were there officers or would escorted you to make sure you went out that way? >> ( interpreter ). >> do you have their
4:40 am
numbers? >> no, they work for the san francisco police. >> i think the lawyer has something. >> let me just interpret that part before your question, so i was in that room for about 30 minutes, all my belongings from my wallet were taken out and they were put into a yellow manila envelope, i was there still, okay, whatever, and then they say, you're free to go, i said, perfect, soifs really happy at that moment and they start to escort me out but i noticed there was a door that said exit but we didn't go out that dao, we went out of another door into an alley, and there were two agents there, but not san francisco police, they were other agencies. >> to answer your question, we did receive a police report when we requested it, and there is information about certain sfpd officers who were involved in the incident. >> can you identify yourself.
4:41 am
>> i'm sorry about that, my name is sayee husein, we have a list of some of the officers who we believe were involved in the incident but we don't have full accounting of what took what action. thank you. >> thank you. >> ( speaking spanish ). ( speaking through interpreter ). >> so, when i went through ta alleywayer, they were immigration agents and they said, you're under arrest
4:42 am
sx, he said, why, are you pedro figueroa, yes, douf documents, no, so they hand cuffed me on my wrists, my hands and my feet. so, after i was handcuffed, they put me into a van, and then i said, wait a second, can i make a phone call, i would like to make a phone
4:43 am
call and they said, sure, and i was allowed to make a phone call with my phone, i called my wife, she said, what's going on, he saidser i'm being detained from immigration, and they were kind, i was able to talk to her for a while. so, but even though they let me talk to her and she was able to speak to them, there was nothing that could be done to change the situation, i was already handcuffed and in the casing at this point, my little girl wauz saying, daddy, daddy, she was
4:44 am
emotionally stressed. so, what came to my mind at my point was to contact my bo*s boss, my supervisor, and he was able to through his means to hire a lawyer for me and i was through that to stop the deportation and i have a hearing in 2017, i don't know what's going to take place at that point. >> ( speaking spanish ).
4:45 am
>> so, thank you again for sharing your story and again, i apologize to you for what took place. >> and i also want to acknowledge that just coming forward to talk and to speak is not easy thing to do and i just want to commend you for having such fortitude to be able to do that as well. so, we have representative from the police department x the sheriff's department who are here and i do want the hear from them, the part that each department had played and also i want to review what were the rules that were in place that resulted into this happening and what is being put forward and changes to policy that can make sure that this doesn't happen again. was this a result of some break in policy or a loophole of the policy, or is it a
4:46 am
result of some kind of lax procedures, and procedures that officers may have been part of. i believe since mr. figueroa had met first with the police department that i will call the police department sxup we have a representative here, captain jack hart who will be here the speak on behalf of the police. >> good afternoon, i'm captain jack hearth from the san francisco police department, tony chaplain and greg could not make it here today because of the critical issue that's happen ining the mission district. i work in the policing bureau and i'm in charge of the professional of the police department, to implement the 21st century task force, and as my previous role on my instruction on [inaudible] heart set and the right mind
4:47 am
set in the work that they do, so listening to this story, tracy mirrors wrote an article about the good cop, in her article, she said we have to move beyond lawful policing and effective policing to rightful policing, so ( speaking spanish ). i just want to say i heard his story and i apologize because a mistake was made and i am saddened that his daughter had to feel paining i'm sad he had to lose a car
4:48 am
and he had lost time with his family over the situation and we want to be rightful police officer, we want to be principle police officers and i'm going to work very hard to make any changes so there are no miscommunications on our responsibilities under the ordinances for which you pass. so, just really quickly, one of the first things the chief, sir, did, he issued a department bulletin, i have that here, it is bulletin 16-015 and as a remind r of 12h2 of the san francisco administrative code and 1.15 dealing specifically with the enforcement of immigration laws, this went out immediately, all police officers within 30 days of the issuance of a bulletin like this shall read it and electronically sign that they acknowledge it. since this was issued february 8th, we are doing compliance checks to ensure that all officersser all members of the department have read this and have signed with it and will be held accountable for that.
4:49 am
>> him hart, i praosht that, there was a discussion and admission even from the chief that a mistake was made. can you describe what that mistake was, and after you describe it, was it a policy mistake or was it some lapse in standard practice that resulted in mr. figueroa losing his freedom? >> that's a very good question. i'm not privy o the exact case file that has been investigated. i can tell you if there's any questions about what police officers were involved and what they did, during the administrative internal affairs investigation, they're able to compel witnesses like police officers to testify and to explain what exact role that they took. as such, other details even deeper than that, if the chief were here, he would say it was confidential, but i believe that the chief has referred this to the police
4:50 am
commission for their further action, so concrete steps are being taken for the specific reasons why this particular incident occurred and in terms of policy, this is to ensure the other 1999 police officers are explicitly clear on what their obligations are. >> i would like to ask while i have supervisor campos go next, if you're able to provide some step by step of what happened, that would be helpful, there has to be something like that in the public record. >> a cum of questions, i appreciate there is an internal investigation by the sfpd, is there another internal investigation by another body of what happened? >> i believe there was a complaint filed with the office of citizen complaints as well, there's that outside and inside, there's trust in the process. . er and where's the o cc here, can they talk about where their investigation is okay,
4:51 am
well, we want to hear from the o cc, second, i'm miefrl *f mindful of the police officer bill of right ts, i aoenl not asking you for specific names but i do want to know, has the department disciplined any officer because of this incident, not the names, have you -- you have the ability to provide that information, so have you disciplined any officer as of today because of what happened? >> i do not have specific knowledge of discipline that was imposed, i know the case was refer today the police commission for one of the officers that was involved. >> and, again, i think that's the problem. i don't buy that someone escorting this gentleman to make sure that he went out of a specific door didn't know what they were doing, and so i think that until we get confirmation as to from the
4:52 am
police department that there was disciplining, hopefully up to and including termination, i think there's always going to be a question mark, and so i ask you, i know the chief is not here, i ask you to ask the chief to please let us know that in fact disciplinary action has been taken, and so long as that remains, i think that there will continue to be a question mark about how serious you are about what you said because it's one thing for you and i think you're very gin win, captain, and i appreciate what you do, i think it's one thing for you to say it and to actually have the department do something and unless we hear that someone was disciplined, it doesn't matter that you sent out a bulletin because the bulletin doesn't mean anything if there's no enforcement of that bulletin. >> yeah, i appreciate what you're saying, supervisor,
4:53 am
that's why we came out with a second bulletin, instead of it being a reminder of the generalization ins the policy, we came out with a second bulletin -- >> just to clarify, the first bulletin is there is a sanctuary city policy that all officers are supposed to follow, correct? >> yes, and it talks about not using race or suspected national origin as a -- >> my point here is so unless you're willing to say that you disciplined someone, if i am an undocumented person living in san francisco, i should be afraid that there was a cop or maybe more than one cop who broke the law that is still on the payroll of sfpd, and not only is it bad because those people or that person remain in the payroll, because the presence of that individual or those individuals sends a message to any other cop that you can do that and there are no other consequences. >> i cannot speak for the chief, but i can say that inferring when the sheaf
4:54 am
said he's going the refer this to the police commission means he's seeking discipline greater than a 10 day suspension, i don't know what that is, but i'm not in that chain of command. er >> it's not whether you're seeking it, have you done it, that's the question that i'm asking. >> thank you, supervisor. i just want to talk about this really quick, the second bulletin that went up because i think it's important, as a street cop, and it was not that long ago, i would have people come to the front counter when i was working at the station and they would ask for their cars to be returned, any time you're going the issue a vehicle release to anyone, you have to run them for warrants which is where i think it is an issue, but mainly what happens when you have a return that says that the person has a warrant, so this is talking specifically to the prohibition on the enforcement of administrative immigration warrants, there's a bulletin that i wrote with
4:55 am
help from the sheriff, she wrote a memo regarding the enforcement of administrative and criminal warrants and i thought the language was excellent because ieding see an officer not wanting to assist eyes executive branch to executive branch but if there's any confusion whether it's helping the judicial branch help a panted, i wanted to make sure -- i'm not saying that's what happened in this case, but as a generalization, that might be a concern, if someone from ice pick us up st phone and calls, we're not supposed to give assistance, with we start seeing federal warrant that is are issued that if there's any clarification, i could see a poor officer on the street, not knowing exactly what their heart set was in this interaction but to have some confusion on this ordinance or a judge's order, and as such, last friday, i issued a department
4:56 am
bulletin saying police officers in san francisco are prohibited from [inaudible] the warrant sma not be enforced, administrative warrant of arrest, shall not be enforced. if there is a criminal warrant in violation of title 18, then that may be enforced, ask this is the language that has come from the sheriff's department and i believe that complies with the current state of the administrative code. if you propose changes to that and that's adopted, then i will immediately issue a department bulletin clarifying and restricting any additional legislation that you pass. >> so, criminal warrant under title 14, it may be, so is there a criteria that law enforcement is fomg here that would say when that would happen, what's the difference? do you have a judicial warrant that has probable cause that is a criminal warrant? >> we're basing it on the
4:57 am
language that's in the administrative code, so as you said, if someone is arrested for a felony, ice could be contacted is the current state of the administrative code f that changes, then we will issue a department bulletin clarifying exactly what we should be doing. >> that's the current state of the administrative code that is in the earlier sanctuary of city policy with the amendment that was made in around 93 that says if someone's booked on a felony, local law enforcement has the ability to coordinate with federal immigration officials? >> i believe you referenced that earlier, yes. >> so, what we have today before us in this hearing is legislation that removes that language. i'm curious though, are you aware that this -- you know t entire time that yu eve been an officer, have you been aware of this language and the sanctuary policy as being
4:58 am
the standard that provides discretion for communication, or since 2013, have you been aware that it's a due process for all standards that's been in place? what has been the understanding of the department? >> we have department bulletins that have been issued clarifying any resolution that is have come out from here. right at this moment, i don't specifically know that. >> was there a practice before 2013, the police department having a person would was booked on a felony communicate with ice, you had officers from 93 to 2013 have the ability to call ice because they had someone in their hands who had been booked on a felony, was that standard practice with the department all these years? >> we had language that allowed that in the general order but i was not personally aware of anyone who did that, it was usually
4:59 am
turned over to the sheriff's department and the sheriff's department during the booking process i assume would take care of that process, but while our department policy would allow such a thing, i had never seen that done by the police department. >> it would also basically work against what standards we have in place, the sanctuary city policy in general, that's something the city has refrained from doing because we know that type of communication would undermine completely the relationship between law enforcement and our communities. >> and that's our balance, having to enforce laws that might not be just and balance that with establishing trust and legitimacy with the community. >> we have the new bulletin, are there any other procedures being put in place, tightening down of policies and practice ins the dfpt that will prevent this from happening in the future? >> not only are these bulletins required reading for police officers but they shall have a working knowledge of them and an
5:00 am
application of them, the lieutenant did a roll call, they make the officers are physically present, they're in their correct uniform, they give them their assignment, when these bulletins come out, there's discussion of what this mean and is how we're taking violations seriously. >> okay, thank you. any other questions, supervisor campos? >> just perhaps if you could summarize any responsibility in in one incident between the police department and the sheriff's department and i know the sheriff's here to talk about her department, so if you could talk about what was the part that the police may have played in this one incident compared to what the sheriff's department was. >> i don't know what -- that the sheriff had anything really to do with this in terms of the initial
5:01 am
interaction at southern police station so, from that, as unfortunate as this incident has occurred, it has generated collaboration with the sheriff's department in reading each other's policies to make sure we're all on the same page and not only a reminder but a strengthening of this purpose and clarification as to what exactly this means and what our responsibility is as san francisco police officers, so i think in that sense, hopefully something positive can come out of this. >> great, i did meet with the sheriff yesterday x her department or she will come up next, but she did talk about that her warrant bureau is part of the ro kress of communication, but it was not necessarily the warrant bureau that was responsible for being on hand when the person -- when pedro figueroa was turned over to ice. so, she'll be here to talk about that, so thank you, mr. captain hart. >> i brought 50 copies of our
5:02 am
policy, i thought i'd leave them here. >> yeah, if you could make sure you could leave some here for the committee, that would be great. sheriff hennessey, welcome, thank you very being here, and -- >> good afternoon, thank you for having me here. thank you all for being here today and i want to express my apologies to mr. figueroa as well for any part that we may have had in what happened to him. so, i think you got the story pretty much. i think captain hart told you it is routine for -- to run somebody's criminal record when they come in to pick up a car, no matter who they are, and in this case, what they do n they run somebody, they call the san francisco sheriff's department warrant bureau and in this particular case, they got a clerk, the clerk saw the warrant in the computer, wasn't real familiar with
5:03 am
seeing an ice warrant in the computer before and there's some discussion, i'm not sure what happened but it seems to me what i think happened because the clerk didn't really remember, and remember this happened back in december before i was sheriff, and so the clerk -- and this didn't come to light until february, so the clerk didn't kind of remember, but it seems like she had some discussion with the police officers at southern station that were there releasing the car, and she did not confirm the warrant, but she put the police officers and the ice confirmation people in touch with each other and that was the end of any of her -- and any of the sheriff's department portion, so because of that and i have to admit, i didn't realize that ncic, the national crime information center was including administrative warrants in its database because it's generally a criminal justice computer database which means you
5:04 am
have a criminal warrant if you're in that database, however i learned subsequently speaking to member of the public defender's office that since 2002, ice -- not ice darkly but through the federal government, administrative warrants have been appearing in the ice database. because of that and because with some help with the public defender who gave me some examples of what those warrants looked like, i put together a policy to make sure our warrant bureau knew that administrative warrants were not to be booked and only criminal warrants could be booked. i shared that policy with the public defend e i shared it with the police department because i knew that they would need that information as well. >> so, how common has it been since it's been happening since 2002, how common has it been for administrative warrants to be mixed up with criminal warrants? >> i don't know, in talking
5:05 am
to members of the public defender's office, they said that does happen occasionally, but i don't know how common it's been. i do know that in my history with the department which is 35 years, but i can't speak to all the warrants because i wasn't involved with warrants all that time, it's not something i realized had happened, whiffs doing the investigation, i thought this is a criminal warrant, that's why this happened, and subsequently, i found out i was wrong, so when i found that out, i wanted to make sewer that we took action. >> so, had there been any training to identify the difference between administrative and criminal warrants in the past to your awareness? >> not that i'm aware of. >> so, that training has now occurred? >> it has occurred through a memo, but it is also presented with examples of what they look like and so
5:06 am
all our staff has been afforded that and i don't think there will be a problem again. >> that's not just the warrant bureau but the entire staff? >> yes, it went out to everybody, but particularly the two points of contact that really or three i would say are the records room, the intake facility, also being told they are not to accept any bookings because it's possible that somebody could bring a booking out let's say the other police departments that operate within our city confines, and also the warrant bureau. >> great, thank you. so, we are also here to talk about -- and we have before us the update to the due process for all ordinance and it includes an update to our sanctuary city policy and in the last year, we saw that we had two standards, and i just learned today or maybe i
5:07 am
learned again, i may have forget because i have selective memory, in the resolution that we had passed in october, we weren't clear with ourselves about what standard we wanted to put forward. i believe verbally on the mic., we all talked about the higher standard, the more restrictive standard having in place when we would allow the exception for communication between local law enforcement and federal immigration officials was when someone had a violent felony conviction in the past 7 year and is was presenting a violent felony in their latest apprehension, and that seemed to be what everyone was supporting back in 2013 when we passed the due process for all ordinance, we passed that ordinance unanimously, the mayor signed it, we were in this room and had a signing ceremony because all of us were very proud of having very strong protections and making this update to our sanctuary city policy based on changes to
5:08 am
federal immigration eninfuserment. now we've seen that there are new changes that we're no longer asked to detain people past their release date, we're merely -- law enforcement, mostly the sheriff's department, is requested by ice to notify them when someone is going to be released, and as i said earlier in the public's mind and in the immigrant community mind, that potential turn-over is real, and really putting a chilling efk on people wanting to come forward and help law enforcement resolve investigations and crime, and so we have before us, you know, this update that members of the board of supervisors praoul u truly believe that we were supporting and want to make sure that becan work with your department on that, so have you had a chance to review the legislation and respond? >> yes, i have.
5:09 am
>> and if you could let us know. >> i would like to give you a little background what i've been doing since i came into office on january 8th and before i came into office, first of all, one of the things when i was running for office is i met with many residents of san francisco and many of them were concerned about a blanket policy of no communication with ice, i met member widths the immigrant rights xhaounbacker communities who are concerned with any communication between local law enforcement and ice and i met with -- we investigated the sheriff's office involvement with the pedro figueroa's situation, i began reviewing every ice request for notification of release dates, received by our department, and we get about 5 per week, i compiled and reviewed the penal code statutes that defines what a violent felony is, what a
5:10 am
serious and violent felony is and what a serious felony is, my campaign with office, i developed a case by case guideline for notification of release, some guidelines. now, my conclusions are after all this work that secure communities was a disaster, i know that, i know that pep is not any bet e i agree with no detention, but a blanket policy of no notification is not consistent with my responsibility to provide public safety. the guidelines that trigger a review must be reasonable and conducted in good faith and those guidelines that i've considered are that an individual with a conviction of a violent felony 7 years within the last 7 years absent incarceration or a contradiction of certain serious felonies and certain serious felonies are defined
5:11 am
in the penal code as well, absent incarceration as well as those convicted of three felonies arising from three events that occurred within the last five years absent incarceration. now, i've been reviewing those and these are only reviewed upon receiving a request from ice for notification of release, and of the 50 i've reviewed, none have met any of these guidelines, so far, i have not come across any individual that has met the criteria. i am focusing only on individuals who present a risk through a history involving violent, serious or repetitive convictions or certain serious or repetitive convictions. if i were to find an individual of this criteria, there will be further review according to the due process for all policy. evidence of rehabilitation, tie tos the community, whether the individual lab a contradict of crime, contribution to the community where participation in
5:12 am
social services or rehabilitation programs. in any case, part of my policy would be to provide a copy of notification to the individual or information to the individual regarding the sfsd practice and decisions, so for example n these 50 cases, i think it's important the tell people, we got this request for notification, we're not going to honor it, we want the give you the opportunity to know that you have -- it has been requested that we notify, give them the opportunity to call immigration rights organizations, in fact, give them the phone numbers, and also inform their public defenders, that's something that i was looking at. as an elected state constitutional officer, i believe i must retain my right to exercise my discretion in this matter and that it affects my law enforcement obligation. >> so, you mentioned five a
5:13 am
week, you get five notifications per week? >> that's pretty much what it's been since i've been in office. >> and then have there been other situations that fall under the sanctuary city policy that has a standard of being booked on a felony that have resulted in any communication with even just within the sheriff's department about whether someone should be communicated about to ice? >> no. >> so, that lower standard is not one that's being practiced? >> what lower standard, i'm sorry? >> the lower standard of our sanctuary city policy having an exception for local law enforcement to talk with our immigration officials based on a person in custody being booked on a felony? >> no, that is not been followed. >> okay, thank you. you're going to continue on? >> no, i really not have much
5:14 am
more to say, i believe this process fully informs individuals and their representatives of each step in the process while also providing helpful information to assist them from continuing to be targeted by ice, i also believe this represents a responsible approach and i think what i said to the chronicle that i would look at things on a case by case basis, i didn't write their blessing but i think it hon noser my obligation to protect all law abiding citizens, i'm sorry, all law abiding residents from fear of victimization and arbitrary immigration law. i don't see it as arbitrary noefkt when i can produce the standards, show the standards and work with the standards. er >> so, your standards now you put in place are, if i heard you correctly, one will be the violent felony within conviction within the past 7 years like we have -- which as a current standard put forward by due process by all being applied to notification, the second one
5:15 am
is a serious felony -- fshlgts it's a certain serious felony that are not covered in this due process for all. >> and what does that include? >> there's a few, there's an example of rape is one, it's a serious felony. >> i would imagine that rape is a violent felony, no? >> no. >> not all always? >> not always. >> it's backed by force? >> there's not very must have, you covered most of them because you covered additional ones with gun charges in your due process for all, and the other one was the combination of three or more felonies arising from different events within the last five years, convictions, and once again, these are guidelines to take a look, these are not guidelines to make a notification. >> thank you. supervisor campos? >> do you think undocumented people are law abiding? >> i think the majority of undocumented people are law
5:16 am
abiding. >> so, how about protecting those otherwise law abiding undocumented people who for whatever reason -- well, for the reasons that we just saw are going to be afraid to come before you, what kind of message do you think it sends to these people, sheriff. you just admitted that one of your clerks, because of an administrative warrant connected police with ice and you just said that you reserved their right on a case by case basis to decide whether or not notification might be necessary. >> no, what i said was, first of all, the clerk did connect possibly, but that was at the request of the police department, and secondly, i would say that my case by
5:17 am
case basis does not include that because it's not in the standards that i've set for the guidelines. >> what about someone who gets deported three times, would you -- isn't that a felony to be deported? >> well, it's not -- if it's administrative, no. it would depend on the other crimes. >> so, what are the current cases that prior to this change of your policy would be included that are not included right now? >> well, they would be included in a different way. first of all, you're looking for in the due process for all policy, you're saying that somebody has to have a conviction for violent felony within 7 years, and the second part of that is that they have to be held to answer for a violent felony currently, and that would not be something that would be part of what i would do. now, i would also tell you that being held to answer
5:18 am
may not get you the result you want because it's possible there could be a plea bargain or something and you would still have a qu*ex, so i would say you might want the talk about conviction, but moving forward. >> well, i have to say respectfully to you, sheriff, you know, i think that we're moving in the wrong direction. i think you're talking out of both sides of your mouth saying you support sanctuary but at the same time changing the rules. i don't think that your comments are consistent. i think they send the wrong message and i think it's because of that wrong message that things like what happened to mr. figueroa happened, and i think it's sad and it's a sad day for san francisco that we have an elected sheriff that is turning back the block on the issue of sanctuary because that's precisely what i think you're doing. you may want to sugar coat it as much as you want, but that's not the reality, and
5:19 am
so long as i'm on this board of supervisors, i'm going to continue to fiekt your efforts to turn back the block clock on the rights of undocumented people and we're going to call out what we see because as much as you tried to soften it and have a kinder, gentler image to what you're doing, it is because of what you're doing that things happened like what happened to mr. figueroa, and we can apologize all we want to mr. figueroa, but i think it's really an empty apology when we apologize on one hand and then turn around and continue to do and engage in the kind of activity that we're engaging in, so i don't want crocodile tears from our law enforcement and i think that's whwh have right now, so i'm going to call it as i see it. i think that in your tenure
5:20 am
as sheriff, your legacy has been to turn back the clock on sanctuary in the city and county of san francisco and i think it's sad, really sad. >> well, i'm sorry you feel that way but i have to say i respectfully disagree, i believe that my policy is a responsible approach to looking at a complicated issue that affects all the people of san francisco and i also believe that the things that you bring up in termser of all our nothing sometimes to me are not as compelling as making sure that we're looking at everything and that i reserve the right as the sheriff to make notifications, but once again, i will do it in a very responsible, a very standard way, and a very open way. if indeed it does happen. >> sheriff hennessey, you
5:21 am
mentioned looking at each person on a case by case basis. i just want to have some clarification on that. that's people who -- on whose behalf is a request for notification, is that when you're applying that? >> right, the trigger is getting a request, i aoep not looking at nilgts? >> so televising's no initiative on behalf of the sheriff's department but only in response does that trigger a case by case, and then -- >> that's true. er >> and then case by case decision, that being done by deputy sheriffs at intake? >> no, that was sent to me and my legal counsel, we're looking at everything. inger >> what directs your staff to kick it up to you and legal counsel? >> my order telling them they will not take any action,
5:22 am
they will refer it up the chain. >> and how that order been issued? >> the order has been issued through -- informal means that -- e-mail which is what we use a lot now in these days in the department, yes. to just forward every request to me. >> and isn't that the same directive that came from sheriff [inaudible] that was put forward last march? >> it's very similar. >> so, how is it different? >> it's different in that i'm taking a look at a case by case basis, i'm not just ignoring them. er >> right, but the question is, i recall sheriff myariney's case, refer to counsel when there's a question about a notification request, that to me was what the memo says which seems to be a case by case basis as
5:23 am
well, so i'm not clear, you know, i'm not clear what the difference is between what the current practice is and what was done before? >> the difference is i set a standard that is a little broader than the standard include ined the current poll and i the one that you're promoting and i don't believe that detention and notification are the same thing and i know you're amending that to be included in this current policy. >> well, notification didn't really become the new pet program law until after that memo was issued i believe, i didn't start hearing about it until june or so of last year. i'm a little bit confused though as to why -- i'm not if that's what you had done or done at the board of supervisors and certainly the mayor had done it and the crinkle had done it, i
5:24 am
called -- they call the sheriff's memo a gag order and i saw you're not going to talk directly to ice, i'm going to kick this up to legal, which is exactly what your memo says, and that's what i would say anything that people would resemble people were saying was a gag order because it still has the same conditions put forward that people need to talk to legal, and i'm worried that the gag order is really -- or if we're undermining our sanctuary city policy over all what it does, it puts a gag on the public which is perhaps undocumented from ever wanting to communicate with law enforcement but i don't understand the difference between these two memos. er >> i did not withdraw his
5:25 am
memo right away, i asked to have every case sent up for review which was not case before, they were not sent up for review. >> they were not sent up for review? >> no. >> what happened instead? >> nothing. >> what does nothing mean? >> i don't know because i was not here. what i've been told -- >> what i saw is that memo was basically saying how to follow the legislation that the board of supervisors had passed unanimously and that the mayor had signed. that was what the memo was about so, when i hear the word nothing, i don't know what that means. i expected that the sheriff was following what the legislation said and was following the memo in that department. had you heard any serious problems that had come from deputy sheriffs that result ined the need to change the
5:26 am
policy slightly? >> no. >> so, what does nothing mean? >> i'm not sure what -- >> you said nothing happened, but it seems like we were following what the legislation make sure that we
5:27 am
meeting our values and putting forward what our intention is as a city. >> and i have to say one of
5:28 am
the reasons i'm having these directed to me specifically and to my legal staff specifically is so that we honor that, so we look at that responsibly. and that our deputies are not put in the position of having to make those decisions or are asked to or allowed to. >> i appreciate that. so, we have before us legislation that is setting the standard that was approved unanimously by the board of supervisors and signed by mayor that the exception of communication with federal immigration officials will be someone who has a violent felony conviction in the the blaster 7 years who's presenting in custody charged with another violent felony, i think that's what we were going to be forwarding to the full board for a vote on april 19th, i expect, and we want
5:29 am
to work with you to make sure that that standard becomes what is applied. i don't believe that you've -- i asked that earlier and the sheriff's department does not take initiative to communicate with ice on any other individual, and yu eve looked at -- you reviewed cases before you and you found nothing that you were going to turn over to ice. i'm interested in seeing how we can make sure that that becomes the standard moving forward. >> i understand. >> okay. >> i have a question. >> supervisor campos? >> sheriff, one thing i'm trying to understand is -- maybe i'm mistaken, it's my understanding that when someone gets arrested, that ice automatically gets notification because they get the fingerprints, isn't that true? >> that's correct.
5:30 am
>> so, in light of that, what i don't understand is given that that already happens, what need is there from a public safety standpoint since you claim that's what's driving you to actually take the extra step to possibly add another layer of notification since they're already getting that information, why do you feel the feed that you and the people that work with you have to go that extra step to help ice? >> i think there's some instances that are not covered by the sanctuary city due process for all, i think a violent felony with 7 years, i think the standard is a little bit high. >> again, you know, this is what's so remarkable, this is what i want people to understand and to the people in the latino community in san francisco, the mayor just went to latin america, there are latin american people in san francisco who are being impacted by the policies of this city, you don't have to
5:31 am
go to latin america to see that. ice automatically gets notification when someone gets arrested and this sheriff is feeling that on top of that, she has to, herself, and her department, retain the right and the discretion to give them additional notification beyond that. ( speaking spanish ). one thing i would say and i want to be very clear about this because i think you're going to have a problem if you approach this job from the per specie that the reason that you were elected is because of what happened with kate sign lee, if what
5:32 am
you're saying one of the reasons you said this you voted on was because of this issue, san franciscans did not vote for you because they're against sanctuary, if you believe that, you're going to have a very interesting time in city hall. san franciscans, the reason you won is because you were running against roz mere chorine and he was his worst enemy, but i believe that san franciscans support sanctuary because sanctuary makes sense from a public safety standpoint and any public official, especially law enforcement official that comes up here and says that they're changing and going against sanctuary because of public safety is wrong. sanctuary makes san francisco safer, and this sheriff, this sheriff by going out of her
5:33 am
way to help ice as she's doing is making san francisco less safe because what she is doing is making sure that mr. figueroa and others like him do not feel comfortable coming forward to law enforcement, and all of us as san franciscans, whether we are citizens documented or not should be worried about that because when mr. figueroa or your other neighborhood down the street who is undocumented is terrified to come forward which they are because of what this sheriff and other folks are doing, they're making us less safe by not coming forward. so, you are not making san francisco less safe by walking away from sanctuary, you are making san francisco actually a more dangerous
5:34 am
place, that's what you're doing. er >> okay. i appreciate what you say, but i don't believe that there is only one route to sanctuary city, and i do believe that there are some discretion that has to be involved in certain cases. >> so, sheriff hennessey, just to clarify and it's my understanding that supervisor mcrim nao*e did have a case by case basis but the standard for the exception was notification or request for detention that was for someone who had a violent felony conviction in the past 7 years, you have a case by case basis as well but you're putting forward as if it's a new thing, i don't see it as a new thing, i see it as a thing that's based, a standard that's based on a lower standard, i think it's
5:35 am
a standard, it's certainly not as low as being booked on a felony which is a very low standard, that hopes the door for a lot of communication that i think creates the conditions that we would see more more people like pedro figueroa experience, but i think that's the main difference, saying ta your basis a case by case basis is new is really not the case, it's a different standard that's in place. >> i would agree, it's a case by case basis on a different standard but also includes elements to look at community ties and -- >> but you would take that under consideration, i understand. what you're putting forward is fot that lower standard and while i wish we would have the highest standard that we could have, i do understand you not using what was before and that to me was a huge consideration and more than anything, i want to make
5:36 am
sure that we can work together on having this high standard that we're putting forward today and it will be voted on at the full board on april 19th and your relationship with the community of san francisco including free sf and people representing the immigrant community is going to be vital of your work as a public safety official, so we'll make sure that happens. >> well, thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we'll open this up for public comment now. i do have a number of cards and people from the public who are haoe, i do have from the public defenders office first, i will call off francisco rigarte. >> thank you, supervisors, my name is francisco, i'm the immigration specialist at the san francisco public defender's office, jeff could not be here today, i'm here representing the public di fender's office. we bhoel heatedly support
5:37 am
the proposed legislation to fix the sanctuary language and one thing that we have learn ined the last two or three months is that when leading public officials opening up the door, simply making a phone call as the mayor recently said to ice, we see situations like pedro figueroa unjustly sent to immigration for deportation for merely reporting a stolen vehicle, that cannot happen in this city. i just have one point to make and it's essentially a follow-up to what supervisor david campos said, there is no correlation, no empirical study finding a connection between deportation and public safety. there is no correlation between public safety and
5:38 am
deportation. in fact, two law professors, one from nyu, one from columbia university studied the secure communities program, and studied crime rates in cities where secure communities was increased and there was increase collusion between law enforcement and immigration, there was no measurable connection between crime rate and deportation, alright, so the essential assumption that is leading law enforcement to increase popbacker cooperation with immigration, the assumption being we need to protect public safety. there is no basis, there is no study to suggest such a connection, so in fact, non-citizens commit crimes and there are arrested crimes on less than citizens, that
5:39 am
is an actual study they found that non-citizens commit crimes on a basis less than their citizen counterpart. where you come from, where you are born, the country you are born from does not show -- is no indication as to whether you will commit a crime and that is -- we currently are live ining a time when there's heightened zen phobia, heightened racism and it is the duty of this city to stand against racism and zenophobia and to support naoez sanctuary policies. thank you very much. >> thank you very much and thank you for coming been behalf of the public defender's office. so, i'll call a few cards and if you can come up norls in the order your name is called, and if you can line up by the television set where the windows are, that's where we line up for public comment. ( calling speaker names ).
5:40 am
>> thank you, supervisor aver kissinger, on behalf of california east justice aincensing we want to thank you for your leadership and making sure our community is safe regardless of these evolving tactics of ice and we hope to continue to uphold due process and sanding chair city, and it's unfortunate this case by case model that is pretty much set to fail because as we saw with the san francisco police department with the many officers, there's no accountability to make sure that these guidelines are being followed and don't think that it's going to happen any better with the sheriff's department, so we thank you for your leadership and hope that we can continue to create a accountability
5:41 am
for these actions that are leading to family separation. thank you. >> thank you very much, next speaker, please. and don't forget to identify yourself. >> thank you for allowing me to make this comment. my name is nanio pimel and i'm representing the interfaith movement for sbekt, and we have a coalition, we convene a coalition in san francisco to talk about issues of immigration, and we want to support this legislation because we feel that one, the scapegoat has happen ining this country against immigrants is really, there's no foundation for that, there's no really a reason for us to look deeper into a group of population as if to say that they're more dangerous than the others
5:42 am
when studies prove that that's not the case, and also a study of the university in chicago found through a survey of 2004 latino immigrants and latino u.s. citizens that 70% of undocumented people, undocumented infants are less likely to report crimes even if they're victims of those crimes if they see that there is a collaboration between ice and law enforcement, now, the 70% that's the vast majority of them, so i'm not sure how collaboration with law enforcement and ice will really make this city more secure, and also from a faith per specie, we believe that this is -- goes against our believes because 1934 said the foreigner -- reciting among you must be treated as your native born, love them
5:43 am
as yourself, you are a foreigner because you were once foreigners in the land of egypt, so for us to tarnish people bho have made mistake ins the past with deportation is not treated correctly and not treated with our beliefs. thank you very much. >> thank you, next speak e please much >> good afternoon, my name is jay han lacier, i'm a ford fellow and we want the thank you for your leadership and supporting this legislation and tell you the three main reasons why we think this is important to happen right now, first of all, our immigrant community ares in a time of chris sis, they're gashed with not only escalating hateful racism but they seek to [inaudible] this legislation does three crucial steps, first, it's going to change san francisco's ordinance to become current with current immigration deportation reeves, right now, our city
5:44 am
law you heard only addresses detainers which were immigration holds where law enforcement was charged with holding an individual for extra time, now ice is asking that law enforcement hold or notify people, but this update seek tos extend the due process protections to notification requests which lead to the same result as detain and he iser detainers have been found to be unconstitutional because they are not signed by a judge so they possess many of the same legal concerns. secondly, this legislation helps to bring the city's code up to date by remove thing obsolete provision in aninger chair cities, that was based on a funding stream that no longer exist and is was not in the original sanctuary ordinance, ice [inaudible] the obsolete language is no longer needed, it's no longer serving its previous purpose and keeping
5:45 am
it would [inaudible] lastly, this update proposes to amend the current ordinance to clarify two low to law enforce. ment that they should not turn people over to ice, therefore, these cases have shown the urgency and importance of updating our laws to be current with what's happening now in san francisco i'm happy the board is seeking to support this, we want the sheriff to follow the city's policy to not lead to confusion. >> thank you, next speak e please, before the next speak e i'll call a few more cards. ( calling speaker names ). >> hi, my name is [inaudible] and i'm a uc berkeley student studying social welfare, i want to start by saying at 21 years old, i have live ined a a family where we couldn't trust local law enforcement,
5:46 am
one of my biggest fears growing up was losing my mother and my sibling, i feared my father would kill us all and i was afraid law enforcement would tear my family apart, as the only u.s. citizen, i remember being 9 years old and running away from my father would was a u.s. resident, wishing and hoping and praying to god he would shot and kill me because that was the only way my family would ever be safe. that niek, he neaten to kill everybacker everyone in any family, my mother and my sibbacker sib binges after he zafer val beat meersinger, we couldn't calm law enforcement, and i shouldn't have to choose death and the separation of the people that keep my alive, and crime knows no borders, so even if you deport people, that won't stop crime from taking place and, yeah, that's all i wanted to say. thank you.
5:47 am
>> thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> ( speaking spanish ).
5:48 am
>> okay, good afternoon, my name is [inaudible] and i'm mere with the women's caucus, i would like to say that this is terrible what's going on. not only do we have to worry about other things, other daily things, am i going to get evicted from my house, am i going to be able to keep my jobs, are my kids going to be safe, now we have to worry if we report a crime where we're the victim, then we're going to be deported so what i'm skl all of you who are elected or have positions of leadership to stop this speedily because we don't want to be fearing for our children, we don't want to
5:49 am
be separated, we don't want children to be separated from their parents or wao*if and is husbands to be separated from each other, so please use your leadership to better the situation. >> hello, my name is kits ya st*ef va, immigrant rights organizer with cause sa hews ta just cause and i'm unjacketed and i'm not scared to demand an end of this prablgts from our law enforcement. first of all, i want to speak to the experiences of our members in causa justa just cause who are experiencing displacement every single day in san francisco. not only because they are seen as [inaudible] just chaired the rising rent in san francisco not only because they're seeing their families in living in deep
5:50 am
poverty but because the way in which law enforcement & cooperating with immigration and is customs enforcement also creates displacement and fear if the community and in many ways, it trickles down to members of our community hear framing the landlords that they're going to call immigration. when they're hear hating the police is connected to this, they will understand this as a threat and many of them have left san francisco because of that. i also don't believe that having that -- that using ice and using deportation as a way of creating public safety makes any sense at all. first because ice really is an agency that has no community, review or accountability and violates human rights and civil
5:51 am
rights every single day, how can we trust in an agency that does something like that to create safety for our communities locally, and really, knowing that law enforcement has list with the deportation and the human atrocity that is our families are experiencing in deportation centers, this is going to cause more fears in our communities, this is going to continue to have -- create no confidence in our community to deal with law enforcement at all, thank you. >> thank you. >> ( speaking spanish ).
5:52 am
( speaking through interpreter ).
5:53 am
5:54 am
>> gracias. >> okay. my name is marie hernandez and i come from [inaudible] which means women united and active. i'm a survivor of domestic violence, it took me 15 years to make this report because of the fear that i felt. when i went the first time, they told me that maybe i should go outside and get some fresh air, the second time that i reported it, the
5:55 am
police told me, maybe you should take your children outside and let your man, let your husband calm down and when he's cooled off, you can go back in, so now we have the situation here with pedro, people come here and you speak very beautiful, very softly, i'm so sorry, please forgive us, we apologize and speak so softly about this but how do you treat us on the treat when it happens, what's the treatment like not here where it's being televised but when there are no cameras. as a survivor, as an immigrant, i belong here in san francisco, my children belong here in san francisco, we shouldn't have to like be afraid to just do what we do as human beings, the apology, who's going to pay for his [inaudible] so, you said his car was sold, so who's going to buy him a new car, would's going to pay for those
5:56 am
fines, who's going to pay for the emotional separation that his daughter and wife went to, we all make our mistakes and we pay for our mistake, then so be it, what happens when you guys commit mistakes? who monitors you, who deports you, where do you get deported to when you commit the mistakes? >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, my name is sira hue seine, i'm a staff attorney at the asian law caucus, i'm as representing pedro figueroa and on a normal basis, what i do is track the patterns of immigration enforcement that ice undertakes, so we're very glad to see that the sheriff recognizes that there is no difference in effect between secure communities and the priority enforcement program but it's unfortunate she does not recognize there is no difference between detainer requests and notification requests. i want to talk a little bit about that because that's
5:57 am
what i study, detainer requests or request were put in to facilitate an in-custody transfer, they tolled people over their time to hand them over to immigration, now in 2014, ice's changed their patterns and tactic, they've started introducing notification requests, saying please let us know when a person is going to be released from custody so that we can be there at that moment to pick that person out, so it leads to the exact same things it leads to somebody ending up in immigration custody, no due process, no judge, it ends up being the same in effect. the problem with this is as supervisor campos noted, all fingerprints are already sent to ice when a person is booked so ice already has these, so to add an additional layer of notification doesn't only
5:58 am
put the immigrants at risk but what is the ability to actually have their rights and due process rights recognized. i also want to recognize of the 2013 due process for all ordinance covered detainers softly, it recognized that was a mechanism that ice was using and it could lead to legal liability, if somebody's overstrained, let's say ice says wait a few minutes until the local law enforcement act osier hold that person so we can go pick that person up, so let me -- >> if you will just finish up, please, a few more sebds. er >> the due process for al order nants, the intent behind it wasn't only to limit legal liability of the city, it was too keep families together to recognize th inherent social fabric that is our society and what immigrants add to that, so i think we need to recognize that as we move forward with this
5:59 am
legislation. thank you. >> thank you very much, before the next speak e i'll call a few more cards. ( calling speaker names ). >> okay, what i'm about to say is going to take care of this immigration reform and st sang khai laws once and for all, in order to take care of this problem, john, you're going the right way, the kind of legislation you need, you need to use the memorandum points and snorts pertain thing documents used to incorporate hawaii to be part of the united states. you need to create legislation to make mexico part of the united states ask that way you would eliminate this illegal immigration problem once and for all because mexico is not taking
6:00 am
care of nair nationality of people in the correct man e that's why they want to come over and live in the united states, by doing that, you eliminate that problem by having mexico be part of the united states and you eliminate this illegal immigration problem and this conflict of sanctuary law, as cesar chavez knew that i knew the history rof the latino and black people and i'm here in a position to do something about it, he would turn over in his grave, there were black people that were slave ts, when the 14th amendment came about which was because of the end of slavery which is the reasons why the 14th amendment was put on the books and then blacks flee from being slaves, the whites sueded hispanic latino people to fill those positions and that's the reason in the history why cesar chavez had
6:01 am
to make that movement and make sure that his nationality of people were treated fair, okay, so now we have these sanctuary cities, the sanctuary cities delivers an adverse effect to not only citizens but delivering an adverse effect to people who are using ser
6:02 am
6:03 am
6:04 am
>> gracias. >> so, good afternoon, my name is isabel mccan, first of all, i would like to
6:05 am
thank jesus christ for allowing me to be here and i noticed that you seem to be really good people, then you must also have christ in your heart. i wanted to mention that i'm a member of causa justa just cause and all of the workers organized there are really baufl because they're selfless, their interest is in helping all of us. in terms of what i'm asking you as an immigrant woman, it's my first time here so i'm blessed to be in this beautiful space and i hope it's not the last time, so within that, what i wanted to ask you is just to let us be, we come here to work, we come here to pay tax, let us work, let us pay taxes, every day we pray, i hope we don't lose our joshing i hope they don't cut our hours or evict me, this is smlgts i have to pray f i hope i don't get
6:06 am
deported if something happens to me, and that role that you have been given with power, then what i'm asking is for you to make this bet e by being in this space is really beautiful and i hope this is not my last time being here in front of you. >> thank you very much. gracias. next speaker. >> ( speaking spanish ). ( speaking through interpreter ).
6:07 am
6:08 am
6:09 am
>> gracias. >> hi, good afternoon, my name is gloria and i would like to begin by saying it's -- it takes a lot for us to be here, it takes a lot for us to leave whatever we have to do to be here and to offer testimony. but i want to remind you that there is a law in place that there is a law in place and it's called due process and
6:10 am
it has to be respected. first and foremost, we have to be respected by the people that we elected as leaders to respect that law, specific here, the sheriff, we come here to this country again to work and we come here to respect the law and we do respect the law. sure, some of us can make mistakes, there are ways for people that could make mistakes that they can do whatever it needs to take to pay the price for those mistakes, but deportation doesn't make us any safer, doesn't make any city or any neighborhoods safer. i want to finish with this, that i want to thank the gentleman again that this situation happened, pedro, because it takes a lot to be here, it takes a lot for you to be here and share your
6:11 am
story, and i want to remind the [inaudible] of two thins, who's going to pay for his loss of income, for the emotional stress his daughter suffered through this and the second thing i want to remind her of, when she comes here and says i don't know, i don't know, i don't know, how can you as an elected official that was elected and is being paid to know that you come to us and you simply to i don't know, you need know, it is your job to know when people ask you what is going on. thank you. >> ( calling speaker names ). >> good afternoon, public safety, supervisor avalos and campos ( singing ) california dreaming on such an ice winter's day, california dreaming on such an ice
6:12 am
winter's day, bring more sanctuary your way, make it a sanctuary day, bring sanctuary our way, you're as cold as ice, willing to sacrifice our love and our law, you're as ice, don't make us pay such a price for everything. wouldn't it be nice if we had more sang ware city, then we wouldn't have to wait for so long and we'd love to live in the city together in the city town where we belong, happy times and money we'll be spending. i wish the borderline is
6:13 am
never ending. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speak -- speaker, please, and anyone else would would like to speak, please come forward as well. er >> that's a tough act to follow, i'm the board chair at le centro legal, at the mission district serving immigrant communities here in san francisco, thank you supervisors for taking up this important policy to protect our communities from police ice enhangbacker tanglement, you have already recognized that we've separated our law enforcement agency from the draconian practices of ice, we cannot foster trust between our police and our immigrant communities if immigrants are turned over to ice when they come to our local law enforcement for help. i know figueroa's case is
6:14 am
one of many that has demonstrate today all of us that we need to be strengthening our due process for all and sanctuary city ordinances, not rolling them back, thank you, supervisors for doing that today. >> thank you very much. >> ( speaking spanish ). >> my name is stef stef nao*e leganti and i'm the coordinator ofp translatina outreach.
6:15 am
so, when i arrived in california but specifically when i arrived in san francisco, i was happy because i arrived in a sanctuary city, as a member of the transcommunity, it was extended to us but now i'm aphrased that if women in my organize go to report domestic violence, they might get caught up in this tanglement of deportation.
6:16 am
and i would like to demand to -- from the police department to give us back our confidence in your police department, in u.s. immigrants, as women, we want that back so we can keep working together. thank you. >> ( speaking spanish ). . ( speaking through interpreter ). >> my name is emily degat toe and thank you supervisor campos for your support. i wanted to start off with what the sheriff said that she doesn't know, what she doesn't know, we know, we
6:17 am
know it every day, we feel it every day in our communities. we come here to this country to work, we come here to this country to make lives better for ourself and is our chaining and i'm sorry that it doesn't do anything, it doesn't take away all of the silence and all of the pain that is caused to us that led to someone saying i'm sorry.
6:18 am
so, the police department, all of the law enforcement, they're here to respect the law, they're here to respect us, unfortunately, if this exists, this cohesion exists between the local police department and is immigration, then i'm not going to report anything, i'm not going to report any assault or nest i can violence, it's going to make us less safer. so, again, i want to
6:19 am
[inaudible] the police department to give us back our trust in you, to do your job. i have a right to be safe in my community, i have a right to be safe at home. if i'm experiencing domestic violence or any other aggression against me and i think that by calling the police to do their job, it's going to lead me to deportation proceedings, i'm not going to do that so it doesn't lead to trust and do your job, so i want to end by saying, do your job, do your job. >> ( speaking spash ). ( speaking through interpreter ) >> my name is sylvia lopez, women united and united women.
6:20 am
i want to thank supervisor avalos and campos for supporting and for keeping san francisco to be a sanctuary city. i didn't come here to the united states because i wanted to, it was the violent, foreign sanctions upon the u.s. government upon my country that forced us to leave our countries and to come to the united states. and that same violent system is forcing us to have to leave our homes, that same violent system is paying us wiz rabble wages and that same miserable system is forcing us to now be deported. and the only reason is so
6:21 am
that we can respect laws that they themselves don't even know what they mean. and we want the police department and the sheriff's department to treat us as such as being people that have human rights. and we want that trust to be rolled back up to be working hand in hand, not to discriminate any opportunity they have a chance to do so. the displacement should be towards -- corruption should be the one that should be displace and had lack of humanity should be the one that should be displaced.
6:22 am
we are women, we are immigrant, we are members of family, members of communities and we should be able to maintain that humanity as members of families and communities. we're here, we're not leaving and you're not taking us out of our communities. >> gracias. >> ( speaking spanish ). >> good afternoon frkts my name is julio -- i'm an imgranted fra chile and i'm been in this country for 15 years. i had the misfortune of riding the [inaudible] when i came to the u.s..
6:23 am
so, i had the misfortune landing in san diego where you could by on any city bus and immigration would pull that bus over, one officer would go in, the other would be inside and they would separate family, chilling lee wasn't experienced in immigrant but now they are, when i stranded in this country, i started to experience racism.
6:24 am
so, i had to leave that city because it was just really terrible. in terms of my own immigration story, i came here because i'm gay, it would be just really difficult for me to live in chile being a gay man, so this country opened its doors to me, only to have them slammed in my face because of what i look like.
6:25 am
so, what i want to remind the sheriff is this, that there is such a thing as human rights, above anything, i'm a human being, sometimes they have to have humanity for themendings i've been in this country for 15 year and is ie eve had no involvement with the law, so speaking latino doesn't make me a criminal, reiterating that [inaudible] have to have humanity and reiterating the fact that i'm a human being first above anything.
6:26 am
so, what i would like to say is that in my 15 years living here and i'm a citizen of this city, i used to really like the san francisco police department, i didn't have issues with them, that started to change a couple of months ago when they just became rude, i'm wondering what's going on, i had a situation where i need today make a report, they made me wait a hell of a long time when they engaged with me, they were really rude and disrespectful, so my
6:27 am
question is to them, what's going on in these last few months that made you as a department take this turn for the worse, thank you, that's all i wanted to say. >> gracias, any other members of the public that want to comment. we'll close public comment, and i also want to recognize our translator as well, could you state your name on the mic., please. please come forward and i want to thank you for your work. er >> interpreter, i'm norman am alexander [inaudible], i a proud immigrant of columbia. >> great, thank you very much. we'll close public comment. and we have this legislation live before us. i want to thank everyone from the public for coming, i want to thank especially people who identified thermoses as immigrants and undocumented immigrants would came and spoke and especially the
6:28 am
[inaudible] i had done work with -- a long time ago, about 20 years ago when i was a social work intern, had worked for a lot of women to [inaudible] 20 years ago and just seeing people testify here today with so much inner strength and collective strength, i know they were good referrals so thank you for all of your work in the community and building your mutual support with each other. onebacker i want to thank the police department, captain hart for being here and sheriff hennessey, we have some disagreements about what standard we want to have in place for how our sheriff's department moves forward on its case by case review. i do not mrao*ef, i have hoped that is not insurmountable and i want to make sure that we can have
6:29 am
the highest -- restrictive standard that we can have and have klaoe, open communication between the department and the community as well who sees this amendment as being vital to having the standard we put if place in 2013, i also want to recognize the mayor did support this legislation, the standard that we're putting forward today as well. this legislation does two things, it changes obsolete language that's in the sanctuary city ordinance that allows the standard of local law enforcement to xhaounbacker communicate with federal immigrant officials, for people would are booked on a felony, that low standard opens the door for ways that would be completely undermining our sanctuary city policy and trust between immigrant community and law enforcement and it is very fitting that today we remove that language. the other piece of legislation is that we're
6:30 am
extending this due process for all standards for the new changes in the federal immigration program called the priority enforcement program or pep, the pep program is no longer relying on requests for detentions, the hold letters but is calling for simple notification to people who want to have the clear separation between local law enforcement and federal immigration enforcement because that separation is vital to public safeties and trust, removing that -- set hating standard in place and extending it to notification is vital so we want to make smaour that moves forward and that happens, that's what this legislation also does, and reiterate hating the standard of 7 year felony conviction is what we move forward in terps of what is allowed in terms of the exception for communication, also take into consideration a person's record of work and service in the community and
6:31 am
efforts for rehabilitation, so i do want to thank again the sheriff for being here, i look forward to the discussion that we have for this legislation at the full board and i would like to open up the mic. for my colleague, supervisor campos, for his thoughts. er >> i don't want to really belabor the point, i think all the key points have been made, but i do think there has to be some context, you know, nothing happens in a vacuum and we are making history i think. i think that, you know, and the question is, are we going to be on the right side of history, and i believe that san francisco will be on the right side of history, that we will be on the right side of history when it konl ts to sanctuary and immigration, i think that in five, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years from now, people will be writing about this moment and i know that when that's written, i want
6:32 am
to be very clear what side i was on and i think that that's what we're talking about, being on the right side of history here, and i think that at the end of the day, you know, people complicate things too much, it's not that complicated, it's simple, you' either for sanctuary or you're not, and if you're not willing to do that, then you're not -- you're on the wrong side of history, it's that simple. >> thank you, i do want to clarify my last statement, notification is the same as the detention, if the outcome results in a deportation, we're not create hating clear separation that we wanted to create. supervisor campos, can we forward this? >> moved. er >> we have a motion from supervisor campos to forward this legislation as is to the board of supervisors and we'll take that without objection and then on our hearing, could we a motion to file. er >> so moved. er >> we'll take that without objection as well. thank you very much.
6:33 am
[applause]. madam clerk, do we have any other ie tens. er >> there's no further business. >> we are adjourned. thank you. ( meeting is adjourned ).
6:34 am
6:35 am


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on